Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Thursday February 19, 2009 @03:17PM
from the please-hammer-don't-hurt-'em dept.

Barence writes "Pirate Bay's co-founder has pleaded for hackers to stop attacking the sites of those organizations lined up against him. Peter Sunde is on trial with Pirate Bay's three other founders for allegedly distributing copyrighted material. The trial is about to enter its fourth day, and in a gesture of support for the four men hackers have begun assaulting plaintiff websites, beginning with that of the The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The campaign has caused concern in the Pirate Bay camp, prompting Sunde to write a post titled 'We're winning, stop hacking, please' on his blog."

Cease fire means stop for now because good may come of it, but if it doesn't, the victor is usually the one who strikes first and hard at the end of the cease fire while the enemy is adjusting their shit.

The unfortunate reality is that, depending on what happens, this could conceivably be construed as either (a) evidence of bad faith (which courts really don't like) or (b) an attempt to intimidate plaintiffs or plaintiff witnesses, which would be a MAJOR problem for the defense (who would then be under the gun to prove total noninvolvement).

Remember: all it takes is one trumped-up charge to slip past the court/jury to make things go down the shitter.

Merely raising the accusation colors perceptions of the defendants. That's why (whenever possible) the defense tries to get their client dressed up in a nice suit and tie, rather than his dailywear, and tries to get him in with a shave/trim to the beard and hair rather than having it look wild and crazy.

All it takes is one lawyer standing up in front of the jury and saying "and we believe Mr. X's co-conspirators are responsible for attacking our business website..." and it doesn't matter what comes after. People tend to remember the first thing they are told and assign it higher value than any counterargument, as shown by many, many psychological studies. That biases the jury and judge and makes the case harder to win.

Way back when I was in law school, my criminal law prof used this example to demonstrate the power of accusation (this in the "innocent until proven guilty" category of things):

How many of you, when you see a cop car go by with someone in the backseat, think "hmmm... I wonder why that innocent person is in the backseat of a police car?" How many of you think "I wonder what he did?"

I generally assume that people are usually arrested for little to no reason. I know sometimes that's not the case, but I live in a rural area. My experience with cops has led me to conclude that they are just bullies, and they harass people just out of boredom. The job seems to attract only people who are belligerent, aggressive, opportunistic and nasty.
When I see someone in the back of a cop car, I feel a pang of sympathy.

IANAL either, but wouldn't his blog post (a public statement) alone be at least some good faith towards disproving that the attacks were not by them? Even if the jury would not regard any counter-argument as highly as the original argument (and the "we're winning" part might just piss them off, frankly), it would at least look good on their part for not being the hackers in question, err, possible question (?).

I would just like to point out that you are all assuming a common law legal system (i.e. the system used by England and it's former colonies), which has a jury in most cases. That is not the case with Sweden (and in fact, in most countries in the world), which uses Roman civil law, which is much less prone to the whims of a jury (although it suffers from other problems).

"Cease fire boys, we got 'em where we want 'em!"
Reminds me of my old Staff. Sergeant.
Even if TPB wins, I imagine this will change the front of file-sharing once again and new technology will emerge. I'm just curious what it will be...

This is pretty much getting back to the old-school "scene" days, where one kid had modem access to sites afar and everyone else leeched copies off them, but also handed them out to their mates at other school / colleges / places of works and someone would inevitably up it to the local BBS.

Staffordshire, in England. Stiff upper lip, and all that. Known for it's particularly fierce Sergeants, much like Nepal is known for its Gurkhas [wikipedia.org], and for its Bull Terriers [wikipedia.org].

I see what you mean. You are saying that Staffordshire is known for its Bull Terriers, Nepal is known for its Gurkhas, but it's not particularly fierce Sergeants that make Staffordshire known. I guess you're right.

It depends on the individual judge. Normally, of course, judges supposed to look at all the evidence and arguments presented, the relevant case law, and use those as the bases for their decision. They do, however, sometimes come up with a decision based on their own biases, then try to work their way backwards and come up with reasons to support their decision. Sometimes it is evident when this type of situation occurs, but you can never really be sure.

For all we know, the plaintiffs are orchestrating this themselves for the exact purpose of planting this kind of bias into the judge. I had the prosecution pull stunts like this in 2004 in a case I was involved with. It is far more likely, in my opinion, that the plaintiffs are doing this themselves BECAUSE they are losing, and to defame any possible associations the defendants may have, or to tie them to criminals or those with criminal activity is the only way they have a chance at prosecution.

The human mind is actually funny. We all think we can juggle multiple variables, and only look at the important, but the cruel (and proven by studies) reality is that everything gets dragged towards the value of "how much I like or dislike that guy on the whole." That overall opinion isn't an average of the individual and independently-evaluated values, but rather the other way around, a value that gets averaged into all the others.

It works equally well for:

- humans. If person X really likes person Z, the same personality traits will be given a big positive delta. "Yeah, he's outspoken, but we need people who call things as they are. And yeah, he finishes his projects later than other people, but he's a perfectionist and you can't rush quality. And maybe some bugs slip past his tests, but it's inevitable in this line of work." If person Y really hates Z, the same things get a big negative delta in their perception. "He's rude and lazy, and his programs are so buggy you have to wonder if he even tried starting them before committing in CVS." Which is why being the boss's best buddy actually works.

- companies and products. Fanboy flamewars are probably the best illustration of it at work. You see extreme deltas applied in their perception, so the same thing (which is probably not even important for anyone else) becomes pure perfection and even God couldn't have done it better to one camp, and the work of Satan to the other camp.

- games. E.g., see all the people who swore that everything about WoW is perfection when they liked it, and flipped to swearing that every single aspect or design decision is pure evil and only deluded idiots like it, when they eventually got bored of the game.

Etc.

Or to put it otherwise, there's a reason why everyone from Bill Gates to some obscure singer tries to whitewash their PR image, by means varying from posing as the great philanthropist (e.g., Bill Gates) to milking some compassion (e.g., Michael Jackson.) Because while we _should_ be evaluating the products based on their individual merits, liking the guy actually makes you like his products too, and hating him makes you find more faults in his products.

What I'm trying to get to is: judges and _especially_ juries should judge the facts independent of any other factors, but they're still humans like the rest of us. Many a case (again, especially when it involved a jury) ended up actually being judged by how well one likes the defendant, or by which lawyer is more charismatic.

So it's probably a good idea to avoid being perceived in some unsympathetic light, e.g., as "one of those evil hackers."

> - games. E.g., see all the people who swore that everything about WoW is perfection when they liked it, and flipped to swearing that every single aspect or design decision is pure evil and only deluded idiots like it, when they eventually got bored of the game.

WOW is the McDonald's of MMO's. Just because millions like it doesn't mean its quality food.

Its initial designers didn't have a fucking clue about dead-time. At least they are slowly learning.

- TPB claims not responsible for the illegal activities of others.- TPB asks hackers to stop hacking TPB's opposition.- Hackers obviously don't listen and continue hacking anyway.- TPB has effectively proven they have no influence on the illegal activities of others ans as such cannot be held responsible.

As ironic as that would be, if you want to be semantic it's only true if "illegal activities" is solely equal to "hacking". Otherwise it's purely inductive. Otherwise, anyone could get out of the same predicament on paper quite easily.
0. Create a site where users clearly are encouraged to blow up flags and statues of Lincoln or the moon or something suitably illegal and unpopular
1. Claim you're not responsible for the illegal activities of others
2. Ask people to stop turning left on red lights on your b

Of course, as any decent hacker knows, "Stop hacking please" is just a l33t-speak code message for, "Keep up the good work"!

Actually, he wrote "We're winning, stop hacking plz" [brokep.com], which is much more funny. He also wrote [twitter.com] "EPIC WINNING LOL" on Twitter after the first round in the courtroom. And he's the press spokesperson for TPB,:)

Yeah, it's not like he can officially condone this behavior and expect to win a suit that's based around his support of the hacking community. I say hack on. That way he's demonstrated that he doesn't support the hacking, you've demonstrated that he has no control over you, and maybe these people will learn to quit hassling file sharers.

Why would he even unofficially condone it? It's only effect will be to make some sysadmins work overtime keeping an eye on the server. These corporations treat their web site as a form of advertising, and they aren't going to go away just by taking it down.

Another take on this is to let a wider sympathetic audience know that there is hacking going on. By giving more people the idea, they are probably insuring that a new wave of attacks on the plaintiffs' internet assets will occur.

By stating this as a plea to cease, they also get to claim that they have no control or involvement in any illegal hacking that is occurring. The can adopt the moral high ground and demonstrate that they are trying to curtail illegal activity being perpetrated by less savory indi

Funny, I thought more, the pirate bay would have seeded an attack code for all bot nets, and then denied responsibility, by saying all their "fans" supporting them are responsible.I love piratebay, but most users are not of the calibur to be able to DDoS attack their competitors or enemies.

Especially RIAA, IFPI, MPAA, et al. Aside from unnecessary negative publicity, taking down these static zero-hit sites accomplishes nothing. Immanuel Kant said it best, "If a site is hacked and no one visits the defaced page, can it be truly considered a hack?"

One should be open to the possibility of IFPI "hacking" themselves to gain popular support. It is, after all, instant sympathy. It wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened.

Doesn't seem like that would be very effective. The only people who even notice are probably going to be those who already have entrenched opinions on RIAA and company already (pro or con). Is this going to make it onto general news anywhere?

Not only that, but how would this be relevant to the actual case?

I don't actually know the answers to those questions, they weren't entirely hypothetical.

Even if the trial outcome may not be affected, there is also a war of opinion outside the courtroom (at least in Sweden, where the copyright issue gets a lot of media space, partially due to the pirate party). And the undeniable effect of moves like this is that

* There is an appearance of dissent amongst the pirates, that they are unreliable and can't even agree with themselves.

* The poor copyright lobby looks like it's a victim to savage internet-hoodlums with no respect for the law or society.

Very slim possibility, I should say. They have little chances of gaining support even if they covertly organize kidnapping of their own children.

Good point. But what's really suspicious to me is that the "hacking" didn't start at the beginning of the trial, although there was plenty of advance notice. It only started after half the charges were dropped.

Comments towards the end of TFA suggest the hackings may be sponsored by the IFPI/MPAA so as to make the Pirate Bay look bad. It would be amusingly absurd to see counter-hacking by TPB supporters keeping the "enemy" sites up.

I find it amusing that the same mind that could be outraged at the prosection of "four innocent men... accused of copyright infringement" would then go on to say "we urge the public to boycott and lynch those responsible".

Boycott, sure. Protest, fine. Even a little creative vandalism is good. But lynching?

I would say someone has their priorities out of whack. Either they haven't thought this through or they are just *that* dumb that they would offer "support" to someone on trial by calling for violence against the plaintiffs.

I thought hackers were supposed to be ingenious and creative thinkers. Not the equivalent dumbass jocks on a rampage.

now if they had said, 'chop off thier balls and ram them down thier throats, then fileshare a recording of thier last moments as they die in pain, being sure to utilise dynamic range compression to make the sounds of them thrashing about in thier final moments before the lack of oxygen and blood loss kill them sound annoyingly louder than whatever was played immediately before it'

The kiddies are that dumb. In times past, they'd be stealing booze and porn from convenience stores. These days, they make botnets. Neither one takes a great deal of imagination, given the prewritten botnet tools floating around.

I thought hackers were supposed to be ingenious and creative thinkers. Not the equivalent dumbass jocks on a rampage.

I think it's interesting that "hackers" are supposed to be so much better/smarter than "dumbass jocks." Really, consider the comparison.

Dumbass jocks - Their turf is real life.Hackers - Their turf is computers.

You get either group on their own turf, they're going to act very similar. Heck, all hackers and jocks are human, so, when put in the right situation, they're going to react similarly (ala Lord of the Flies). No reason to expect one group to be "better" than the other.

Heck, all hackers and jocks are human, so, when put in the right situation, they're going to react similarly (ala Lord of the Flies). No reason to expect one group to be "better" than the other.

You... you understand that Lord of the Flies is fiction, right? You can't use it as an example of human behavior. But I'm inclined t'agree with you, even so. Valuing knowledge and information doesn't give moral superiority over valuing physical prowess, although I think the intellectual crowd tends to reach a (relatively) mature ethic earlier in life.

Yes, I know it's fiction. I wasn't using it as an example of behavior. I was using it because it's relatively common and most people understand what it's trying to show. (And, as many a natural disaster has shown, people do revert back to "survival mode" - from the rich to the poor - when put in the right situations.)

As for your comment:

although I think the intellectual crowd tends to reach a (relatively) mature ethic earlier in life.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "ethic." My only remark is that, if you're part of the intellectual crowd, you may be bias. (I'm part of the same crowd though and

although I think the intellectual crowd tends to reach a (relatively) mature ethic earlier in life.

This ain't:

I'm curious as to what you mean by "ethic." My only remark is that, if you're part of the intellectual crowd, you may be bias.

Fair enough. As t'my bias, I'm the artistic type. I reckon I relate to the thinky types more closely than the jocks. And I was typing out of my ass, with no peer-type review backing me up. It's based entirely on my own observation and reflection.

As t'what I mean, I think the intellectual crowd, broadly speaking, tends to have a better understanding at a young age of how their actions affect others and a stronger sense of sympathy. That is, they seem to be less inclined to cause harm,

I'm not so sure that the attacks are intended as support of TPB's founders, beloved by all though they are, so much as protest against abuse of the legal system by IFPI et al.

After all, copyrights aren't an entitlement as IFPI are claiming, but an incentive for them to open "their" creations for the common good. They're just trying to extort an increased scope for the standard bribe. Who wouldn't object to that?

they liked him ( he is the lead of the group who worked on and wrote declaration of the rights of man ), respected him, but they were SO fed up with aristocracy and what they lived in their hands that noone heeded the pleas to stop violence against aristocrats.

its something like that. 3% of the population is trying to suppress 97% of the population like those times. 3% is the corporations and the i.p. industry, and 97%, the people, like the last time.

Why would hackers be targeting those sites now instead of hitting them 24/7/365? It's not like these organizations were good and then all of a sudden became evil when they brought TPB to court.

Besides, who really cares about their websites? If the hackers really wanted to get the job done then every employee of every one of those organizations would have nothing but goatse in their inbox from now until the day they resign.

What I found most interesting was the report that one defacement included a complaint that innocent people were on trail. I though the idea that only guilty people are tried was an United States philosophy, along with idea that defense lawyers sole purpose was to get the guilty off on technicalities.

In fact, as annoying as the trial is, this is how a court system should work. There is an ambiguity in law. The copyright owners believe that one is true, the Pirate Bay believes another thing is true. Rather than complaining that the process of justice is moving along, we should be thankful that we live in a world where somewhere such a process is available, and the Pirate Bay was not just summarily destroyed and the people involved were not just summarily fined to oblivion, which is what happens in America.

I hope that the rest of the world is not being infected with the meme of the court system as a tool of the criminal, because it is sure nice to have an place where a relatively impartial educated person can hear and adjudicate on legitimate differences of opinion.

The copyright holders I keep hearing about continue to believe shit that has been struck down again and again. Apparently this case opened with a speech by the prosecution saying that the purpose of copyright was to ensure artists get paid and can control the use of their work. This has never been true and has been made abundantly clear by every court in the world that this is *not* the purpose of copyright. It exists solely to benefit the public in ways that a lack of copyright supposedly would not. As soon as the prosecution got up saying that shit the judge should have found him in contempt and thrown out the case. He's misleading the court and that shit should not be tolerated.

So, if they are found guilty, what's to stop "interest groups" from going after gun manufacturer's next saying that they are enabling criminals? And after that auto manufacturer's for enabling drunk drivers for after all without cars we wouldn't have drunk drivers.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility and holding the actual criminals responsible for their actions?

So, if they are found guilty, what's to stop "interest groups" from going after gun manufacturer's next saying that they are enabling criminals? And after that auto manufacturer's for enabling drunk drivers for after all without cars we wouldn't have drunk drivers.Whatever happened to personal responsibility and holding the actual criminals responsible for their actions?

You forget, those are merely the lives of people who make less than 250,000 US dollars a year, and this is the revenue for large corporations.

Most of me wishes TPB will wipe the floor with the vile scum that are the plaintiffs. But really, I know that if TPB win, things will just get worse as the plaintiffs will seek to defend their revolting monopolies in ever more extreme ways elsewhere. They'll be like Agent Smith: just bringing in more and more lawyers.

If TPB lose, then things will get even worse as file sharing is forced further into the darknet and whole cultures start to grow up effectively rejecting completely any moral regard for copyright in any form. The RIAA and the others have not a clue about how far things can go here, nor how damaging they will become in trying to prop up their failing business models.

And just in case anyone is tempted to say that I'm going over the top about being able to share my Pixies albums with strangers, let me assure them that they've missed the point by a mile.

What the GP is suggesting is a conspiracy theory, that the opponents to file sharing hired some hackers to attack their own sites, under the assumption that everybody will suspect TPB is behind the attack and that it will ruin TPB's credibility.

Perhaps it's just me. However, I have noticed something recently. We don't like long sentences. I read the above with ease. In fact, I don't see what you're complaining about. It seems odd to me. I grew up reading Lord of the Rings. And other things like that. Long sentences aren't rocket science. They can even be easier to read than short sentences. Sometimes they are more suited to your subject. Just don't confuse the long sentence with the run-on sentence. Phew.